From: Ariosto Raggo <df803-AT-freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Tao, paradox, heraclitus
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 00:55:15 -0400 (EDT)


<smile>
   
  Faizi, yes, more Bataille than Heidegger. I was going to keep my
silence, after all as I  suggested, it's protest and vigilance has a
way  of organizing list activity which  is light years ahead in  depth 
and maturity since you and me flamed each other to  hell and back; but
you have a way of arousing me  from  my slumber of  silent  ignorance
and contempt. You didn't play  on my turns though, you  have never been
able  to  ridicule from  within my  own style. You  never open my 
gifts, I want my sword back, you know, the one that cuts off
propositional discourse, that  was the perfect image I  had of you. You
had a chance of being a list enlightened,  spectral,  virtual entity
but you blew it.  You and your buddies from  genius-l  tilted the
upward  flow towards dogmatic  statements for vague notions of truth
and ultimate reality, naturally, I  had to  occupy a dissagreeable
position. I am  very suspicious of any pathos of   agreement yet I 
know there are possibilities for broad, loose consensus that can give 
this list a certain atmosphere, an identity so to  speak in  spite of
our obvious differences. But you can bet  that I will do everything  in
my power to protect the quality of spiritual peregrination, of the
elevation of tracing movements and their manners however modeless or
without creative style they  may be. One of these possibilities could
revolve around the central importance of meditation however each  one
of us interprets  this thoughful manner of existing, in fact, I am
already interpreting. You know Faizi, I am disappointed, I really
thought that perhaps David was holding back on  me and could  have at
any time displayed a nuanced and detailed understanding of Buddhist 
philosophy and psychology which would have forced me to pay attention and
listen with more respect  but it didn't and it hasn't happened. I am
not sorry he chooses to leave us, just disappointed. I know  he would
have found this list a challenge but he seems intent on dogmatic
statements without nuance. For instance toward mysticism because he
implied, that in these traditions, whatever we  may be refering to
with this word, there was no purifying of reason. In fact, that's one
of the main topics of communication. Right  there, I had to wonder
about how much he had in fact thought about mysticism and its relation
to philosophy. There separation  is a modern one, five hundred years
old at most, in the west at least. Prior to this there  were no clear
cut boundaries between mysticism and philosophy. I can go on and look
at the posts more closely and point out more careless dogmatism but why
bother spending my  time on this when some of you don't show much
interest in listening to me and trying  to understand that, not nearly
as much as I have shown you. In Al-farabi(source of western philosophy) who
is a mixture of Aristotle and Neoplatonism there either four intellects
(potential, actual, acquired, active), this is Aristotle (De Anima) or
ten, it then breaks down into six. The sixth one corresponds to the
tenth one in the  neoplatonic hierarchy, the fifth is the potential
intellect, four is conscience, then natural perception, common sense,
down to discernment or prudence. Philosophy is not simple, it requires
years to ignite so that you know you are really living it with passion. I
have  read enough Buddhist philosophy to know it's no different in that
tradition, hence  my disappointed at  a possibly exciting envelopement
on this list. My intent is not to push anybody out of this list, I just
want nuanced discussions with depth to them, especially if you pretend
to the wisdom of sages. There are levels to understanding depending on
age and experience which I can take into account but there are limits.
And the dogmatic dissing of Heidegger, how can you respond to such
ignorance? Heidegger of all western (debatable) philosophers is the one
 who has been taken most seriously by those who are students of eastern
philosophy. The irony is, and those of you who have been here a long
time will understanding me, is that the responses I am starting to get
for my apparent lack of *clarity* echo the noise me and others got from
many of the instituted academics that frequent this list. It's too
funny, I am been branded an academic, my God what's going on. No, I
don't target a mindset or fashion, I write for very few people, I can
count them in my hand, some of you are here. I am sure if the Buddhist
crowd were to stay, I would find myself studying more of that if I saw
true seriousness and nobility of character which you don't show by
vomiting and dissing all over the place, by  a *weak* stomach.

blah, blah, blah

Ariosto



--